Guevorg Oroudjian v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUEVORG OROUDJIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72945
Agency No. A096-494-625
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 4, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: RYMER, WARDLAW and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Guevorg Oroudjian, a native of Iran and citizen of Russia, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of his
appeal for failure to meaningfully apprise it of the reason underlying the appeal,
FILED
MAR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

This disposition is without prejudice to Oroudjian’s seeking to reopen1
proceedings in the BIA to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See
Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2004).
due to the BIA’s denial of his motion for consideration of an untimely filed brief.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We deny the petition.
The record does not support a conclusion that Oroudjian’s due process rights
were violated. Oroudjian did not lack notice that his appeal could be summarily
dismissed for failure to file a timely brief. Failure to file the brief was not on
account of lack of notice, but on account of counsel’s admitted error in not signing
the first submission and in not assuring that the signed brief would meet the
deadline. In these circumstances, we decline to find a due process violation. See
Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 822 (9th Cir. 2003).
Nor did the BIA deny Oroudjian a full and fair hearing by rejecting the brief
instead of accepting his Notice of Appeal. Oroudjian’s Notice of Appeal failed to
state its reasoning with the specificity necessary to adequately apprise the BIA of
the reasons for appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i).1
Summary dismissal was, therefore, appropriate.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --